20200
P
1
20100
R  E
2
2070
D   I   C
3
2050
T   I   O   N
4
2040
S   F   O   R   J
5
2030
O  U  R  N  A  L
6
2020
I  S  M  2  0  2  0
7

Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving

“The question of how we save journalism (meaning newsrooms) will begin to shift to how do we save journalism (meaning the process).”

There are always two conversations happening in any given field. There’s the one that is being had in public, discussed in the open, opined about in columns and on Twitter. Before that conversation, though, is the one that’s had in small groups, in chats and DMs, in conference hallways or venting sessions — the conversation that’s considering opinions, ideas, and positions before moving into the light of broader debate.

One of those conversations is about how we decide when to stop trying to save a news organization.

When we’re all working so hard to make the case to the public that journalism is worth supporting, both culturally and financially, and that it has a valuable, even essential role to play in a healthy, free society — it feels like awful timing to reckon with the reality that there are outlets that practice a kind of journalism that isn’t worth preserving at all costs. It’s also terrifying timing when so many people are looking for work in the field.

There are newsrooms that have now spent decades continuing down a stubborn path. Every new diversity initiative, each new practice that nudges the field toward representation, access, and inclusion, prompts only the most marginal improvements in their staffing or framing. All the thinkpieces or academic research on impact for audiences, society, or democracy barely register.

We’re rallying millions of dollars in the name of saving journalism, and yet so few newsrooms can be bothered to respond to a diversity survey that funders had to make a special appeal to get newsrooms to participate.

How and when do we decide between trying to save the newsrooms that have shown no interest in being better and focusing on helping develop and support the new and willing existing organizations that are putting in the effort and work to be diverse, to be collaborative, to prioritize audience needs over platform demands, and to actively defend against the attempts of powerful interests to weaponize the news cycle?

Those side conversations will soon move from private messages to the main stage.

Of the many lenses through which we can consider what journalism is and what it could be, there are two that are constantly on my mind.

There’s the accountability mechanism of an independent press — the information system that helps people navigate their decisions, the narrative connection that facilitates our exposure to and understanding of one another. This is journalism that serves. This is why the notions of journalism and the press endure across time and geography. This is what caused the organizers of a fledgling nation to protect the freedom of the press as essential to a free, healthy, and functioning society.

Then there’s the industry of news media — the one that packages up journalism as a product (in the truly commercial sense of the word) and trades on it (and its attendant audiences and their marketability) as a commodity, cloaked in the nobility of the mission, protected by a First Amendment designed for the service, while steeped in many of the same industrial misdeeds that many other corporations commit. (Think resisting unions, discriminating against people of color, protecting abusive men, failing to adequately compensate employees, exploiting freelancers, inadequately protecting workers from the hazards of the job, offering sub-standard benefits and working conditions, promoting leaders based on political maneuvering and old-school social networks, and on and on.)

We’ll someday have to reckon with the fact that, while the work of journalism is essential, it’s actually an awful bargain for the majority of people doing the work. (It hasn’t gone unnoticed that many of the organizations that do badly by their employees don’t always do the best by their audiences.)

To be clear, I’m not arguing that practitioners of journalism shouldn’t concern themselves with building sustainable businesses. Newsrooms have a responsibility to innovate and seek ethical and sustainable business practices. I’m saying there’s a difference between building a sustainable organization that serves its constituents through the process of journalism, and building or shoring up businesses that package up news content and audience attention as a commercial product and prioritize that over serving the informational needs of audiences.

Can the latter do quality journalism? Of course, we’ve seen it. But we’ve also seen misses exceed the hits. We’ve seen communities damaged by negligence, people harmed by discriminatory narratives, and more accurate — and difficult — nuance discarded for bombastic simplicity. We’ve seen news weaponized, both by outsiders and from the inside. We’ve seen news that actually serves the public, and we’ve seen arguably more that serves power instead.

Sometimes these dual roles exist in the same newsrooms. Other times, there are clear signs of which organizations are which.

The newsroom that publishes an accessible and clear explainer of the ballot for an upcoming election is doing the service of journalism. The newsroom that runs the breathless account of winners and losers from a televised debate is participating in the industry’s attention marketplace. The newsrooms that report out a politician’s claims before amplifying them are doing journalism. The newsroom that rapidly retweets false claims are jumping at bait in exchange for attention.

As we continue to grapple with the questions of how to make journalism sustainable, we must also grapple with what kind of journalism should be sustained.

Is it the entities themselves? Some are owned by billionaires, while many are owned by conglomerates that certainly more concerned with the “industry” half of the news industry. Is it the institutions, many of which are legacy newsrooms with storied histories and shamefully incremental movement in the diversity of their teams and a myopic view of their proximity to and enabling of power structures invested in the status quo? Is it the identity of being a capital-J Journalist — often ordained by a college degree, an unpaid internship or three, sights set on New York or D.C., and occasionally a knee-jerk need to attack anyone who attempts to question your practices because “that’s called journalism,” and not to do so would risk acknowledging one’s own participation in historic practices that may have caused harm?

Institutions and identities are inherently resistant to change. Processes, however, can change, adapt, and evolve. Processes can be transparent, humble, and accountable. Processes can be collaborative, equitable, and inclusive. Processes can shift people from being the object of journalism to the subject — active, accountable participants.

Focusing on what is done and how it’s done, and making those processes more accessible to a broader swath of people, is a far more effective path to larger, systemic changes that last.

This is why some of the brightest, most effective journalistic work is done by people and organizations who are thinking deeply and carefully about how they do what they do, who gets to be involved, and what needs are served by the work.

The question of how we save journalism (meaning newsrooms) will begin to shift to how do we save journalism (meaning the process). How we answer that question will have a profound impact on the management of newsrooms, the business models we develop, the processes we adapt, and the service we provide.

Over the coming year, we’ll see a rapid evolution in the processes of journalism, one that asserts a more inclusive, representational and service-driven orientation. New organizations — and existing newsrooms motivated to change — will become more flexible and nimble in their consideration of how they do what they do and their accountability for the same. We’ll experiment with adopting new practices and continue to embrace more openness and collaboration with others in the field and those outside of it as we include our communities and engaged audiences to take part — not just as recipients or story leads, but as people with an active role to play in the process of journalism.

Heather Bryant is founder and director of Project Facet.

There are always two conversations happening in any given field. There’s the one that is being had in public, discussed in the open, opined about in columns and on Twitter. Before that conversation, though, is the one that’s had in small groups, in chats and DMs, in conference hallways or venting sessions — the conversation that’s considering opinions, ideas, and positions before moving into the light of broader debate.

One of those conversations is about how we decide when to stop trying to save a news organization.

When we’re all working so hard to make the case to the public that journalism is worth supporting, both culturally and financially, and that it has a valuable, even essential role to play in a healthy, free society — it feels like awful timing to reckon with the reality that there are outlets that practice a kind of journalism that isn’t worth preserving at all costs. It’s also terrifying timing when so many people are looking for work in the field.

There are newsrooms that have now spent decades continuing down a stubborn path. Every new diversity initiative, each new practice that nudges the field toward representation, access, and inclusion, prompts only the most marginal improvements in their staffing or framing. All the thinkpieces or academic research on impact for audiences, society, or democracy barely register.

We’re rallying millions of dollars in the name of saving journalism, and yet so few newsrooms can be bothered to respond to a diversity survey that funders had to make a special appeal to get newsrooms to participate.

How and when do we decide between trying to save the newsrooms that have shown no interest in being better and focusing on helping develop and support the new and willing existing organizations that are putting in the effort and work to be diverse, to be collaborative, to prioritize audience needs over platform demands, and to actively defend against the attempts of powerful interests to weaponize the news cycle?

Those side conversations will soon move from private messages to the main stage.

Of the many lenses through which we can consider what journalism is and what it could be, there are two that are constantly on my mind.

There’s the accountability mechanism of an independent press — the information system that helps people navigate their decisions, the narrative connection that facilitates our exposure to and understanding of one another. This is journalism that serves. This is why the notions of journalism and the press endure across time and geography. This is what caused the organizers of a fledgling nation to protect the freedom of the press as essential to a free, healthy, and functioning society.

Then there’s the industry of news media — the one that packages up journalism as a product (in the truly commercial sense of the word) and trades on it (and its attendant audiences and their marketability) as a commodity, cloaked in the nobility of the mission, protected by a First Amendment designed for the service, while steeped in many of the same industrial misdeeds that many other corporations commit. (Think resisting unions, discriminating against people of color, protecting abusive men, failing to adequately compensate employees, exploiting freelancers, inadequately protecting workers from the hazards of the job, offering sub-standard benefits and working conditions, promoting leaders based on political maneuvering and old-school social networks, and on and on.)

We’ll someday have to reckon with the fact that, while the work of journalism is essential, it’s actually an awful bargain for the majority of people doing the work. (It hasn’t gone unnoticed that many of the organizations that do badly by their employees don’t always do the best by their audiences.)

To be clear, I’m not arguing that practitioners of journalism shouldn’t concern themselves with building sustainable businesses. Newsrooms have a responsibility to innovate and seek ethical and sustainable business practices. I’m saying there’s a difference between building a sustainable organization that serves its constituents through the process of journalism, and building or shoring up businesses that package up news content and audience attention as a commercial product and prioritize that over serving the informational needs of audiences.

Can the latter do quality journalism? Of course, we’ve seen it. But we’ve also seen misses exceed the hits. We’ve seen communities damaged by negligence, people harmed by discriminatory narratives, and more accurate — and difficult — nuance discarded for bombastic simplicity. We’ve seen news weaponized, both by outsiders and from the inside. We’ve seen news that actually serves the public, and we’ve seen arguably more that serves power instead.

Sometimes these dual roles exist in the same newsrooms. Other times, there are clear signs of which organizations are which.

The newsroom that publishes an accessible and clear explainer of the ballot for an upcoming election is doing the service of journalism. The newsroom that runs the breathless account of winners and losers from a televised debate is participating in the industry’s attention marketplace. The newsrooms that report out a politician’s claims before amplifying them are doing journalism. The newsroom that rapidly retweets false claims are jumping at bait in exchange for attention.

As we continue to grapple with the questions of how to make journalism sustainable, we must also grapple with what kind of journalism should be sustained.

Is it the entities themselves? Some are owned by billionaires, while many are owned by conglomerates that certainly more concerned with the “industry” half of the news industry. Is it the institutions, many of which are legacy newsrooms with storied histories and shamefully incremental movement in the diversity of their teams and a myopic view of their proximity to and enabling of power structures invested in the status quo? Is it the identity of being a capital-J Journalist — often ordained by a college degree, an unpaid internship or three, sights set on New York or D.C., and occasionally a knee-jerk need to attack anyone who attempts to question your practices because “that’s called journalism,” and not to do so would risk acknowledging one’s own participation in historic practices that may have caused harm?

Institutions and identities are inherently resistant to change. Processes, however, can change, adapt, and evolve. Processes can be transparent, humble, and accountable. Processes can be collaborative, equitable, and inclusive. Processes can shift people from being the object of journalism to the subject — active, accountable participants.

Focusing on what is done and how it’s done, and making those processes more accessible to a broader swath of people, is a far more effective path to larger, systemic changes that last.

This is why some of the brightest, most effective journalistic work is done by people and organizations who are thinking deeply and carefully about how they do what they do, who gets to be involved, and what needs are served by the work.

The question of how we save journalism (meaning newsrooms) will begin to shift to how do we save journalism (meaning the process). How we answer that question will have a profound impact on the management of newsrooms, the business models we develop, the processes we adapt, and the service we provide.

Over the coming year, we’ll see a rapid evolution in the processes of journalism, one that asserts a more inclusive, representational and service-driven orientation. New organizations — and existing newsrooms motivated to change — will become more flexible and nimble in their consideration of how they do what they do and their accountability for the same. We’ll experiment with adopting new practices and continue to embrace more openness and collaboration with others in the field and those outside of it as we include our communities and engaged audiences to take part — not just as recipients or story leads, but as people with an active role to play in the process of journalism.

Heather Bryant is founder and director of Project Facet.

Errin Haines   Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story

Marie Gilot   This is fine

Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker   A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech

Cory Haik   We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it

Candis Callison   Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change

Rachel Glickhouse   Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline

Bill Adair   A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song

Dannagal G. Young   Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart

Cristina Kim   Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”

Margarita Noriega   The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms

Geneva Overholser   Death to bothsidesism

Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb   Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage

Heather Bryant   Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving

An Xiao Mina   The Forum we wanted, the forum we got

Raney Aronson-Rath   News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions

Christa Scharfenberg   It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women

Joe Amditis   Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table

Sonali Prasad   Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional

Moreno Cruz Osório   In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks

Jasmine McNealy   A call for context

Whitney Phillips   A time to question core beliefs

Kourtney Bitterly   Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation

Nushin Rashidian   Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?

Monica Drake   A renewed focus on misinformation

Adam Thomas   The silver bullet

Doris Truong   The year of radical salary transparency

Juleyka Lantigua-Williams   A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions

Seth C. Lewis   20 questions for 2020

Knight Foundation   Five generations of journalists, learning from each other

Stefanie Murray   Charitable giving goes collaborative

Richard J. Tofel   A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges

Francesco Zaffarano   TikTok without generational prejudice

Mike Caulfield   Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd

Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz   News coverage gets geo-fragmented

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   The business we want, not the business we had

Josh Schwartz   Publishers move beyond the metered paywall

Zizi Papacharissi   A president leads, the press follows, reality fades

Brian Moritz   The end of “stick to sports”

Annie Rudd   The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph

Matt DeRienzo   Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers

Mario García   Think small (screen)

Jeff Kofman   Speed through technology

Peter Bale   Lies get further normalized

M. Scott Havens   First-party data becomes media’s most important currency

Alice Antheaume   Trade “politics” for “power”

Joni Deutsch   Podcasting unsilences the silent

Catalina Albeanu   Rebuilding journalism, together

Kerri Hoffman   Opening closed systems

Carl Bialik   Journalists will try running the whole shop

Julia B. Chan   We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏

Jennifer Brandel   A love letter from the year 2073

Anthony Nadler   Clash of Clans: Election Edition

Talia Stroud   The work of reconnecting starts November 4

Carrie Brown-Smith   Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening

Elizabeth Dunbar   Frank talk, and then action

Tom Glaisyer   Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful

Hossein Derakhshan   AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris

Jake Shapiro   Podcasting gets listener relationship management

Nico Gendron   Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z

Simon Galperin   Journalism becomes more democratic

Linda Solomon Wood   Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal

Tamar Charney   From broadcast to bespoke

Rachel Schallom   The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates

Sue Robinson   Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments

Jim Brady   We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own

Heidi Tworek   The year of positive pushback

Bill Grueskin   Our ethics codes get an overhaul

Sarah Schmalbach   Journalist, quantify thyself

Joshua Darr   All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse

Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young   The promise of nonprofit journalism

Alana Levinson   Brand-backed media gets another look

Laura E. Davis   Know the context your journalism is operating within

Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor   Think twice before turning to Twitter

Beena Raghavendran   The year of the local engagement reporter

Matthew Pressman   News consumers divide into haves and have-nots

Victor Pickard   We reclaim a public good

John Keefe   Journalism gets hacked

Brenda P. Salinas   Treating MP3 files like text

John Garrett   It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization

Lauren Duca   The rise of the journalistic influencer

Irving Washington   Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job

Fiona Spruill   The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves

Ernie Smith   The death of the industry fad

S. Mitra Kalita   The race to 2021

Kathleen Searles   Pay more attention to attention

Steve Henn   The dawning audio web

Jonas Kaiser   Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists

Ben Werdmuller   Use the tools of journalism to save it

Dan Shanoff   Sports media enters the Bronny era

Masuma Ahuja   Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful

Alexandra Borchardt   Get out of the office and talk to people

Tonya Mosley   The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends

Cindy Royal   Prepare media students for skills, not job titles

L. Gordon Crovitz   Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms

Kristen Muller   The year we operationalize community engagement

Millie Tran   Wicked

Mira Lowe   The year of student-powered journalism

james Wahutu   Western journalists, learn from your African peers

Ståle Grut   OSINT journalism goes mainstream

Lucas Graves   A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters

Emily Withrow   The year we kill the news article

Jakob Moll   A slow-moving tech backlash among young people

Nathalie Malinarich   Betting on loyalty

Tanya Cordrey   Saying no to more good ideas

Sarah Stonbely   More people start caring about news inequality

Don Day   Respect the non-paying audience

A.J. Bauer   A fork in the road for conservative media

Helen Havlak   Platforms shine a light on original reporting

Joanne McNeil   A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)

Mariana Moura Santos   The future of journalism is collaborative

Michael W. Wagner   Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative

Kevin Douglas Grant   The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth

Craig Newmark   Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation

Rachel Davis Mersey   The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide

Felix Salmon   Spotify launches a news channel

Jeremy Olshan   All journalism should be service journalism

Nikki Usher   All systems down

Nicholas Jackson   What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support

Sarah Alvarez   I’m ready for post-news

Sara K. Baranowski   A big year for little newspapers

Rick Berke   Incoming fire from both left and right

Logan Jaffe   You don’t need fancy tools to listen

Colleen Shalby   Journalists become media literacy teachers

Greg Emerson   News apps fall further behind

Imaeyen Ibanga   Let’s take it slow

Pablo Boczkowski   The day after November 4

Meg Marco   Everything happens somewhere

Meredith Artley   Stronger solidarity among news organizations

Barbara Gray   Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement

Sarah Marshall   The year to learn about news moments

Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper   Power to the people (on your audience team)

Monique Judge   The year to organize, unionize, and fight